On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 07:46:05PM -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
> On 12/19/20 05:31, some guy from Australia wrote:
> > Hi folks, if you have a few minutes, please review this proposed petition
> > to Trump.
> >
> > It also needs a destination for each "signee" to send their copy to -
> > perhaps this is somewhere at WhiteHouse.gov ?
>
> What standing does someone from Australia have regarding martial law in
> the United States of America, and what is the legal basis for such
> standing if any?
>
> My hunch is "none" and "not applicable" but I'd like to hear the other side.
The legal standing of an individual non-US citizen to call on the US president
to declare martial law is small, but not none, and not negligible. In the
present circumstances, the policies of Trump vs Biden, may have a great impact
on the maintenance, or collapse, of the US dollar.
The reason our interest is not none, is that the outcome of the US presidency
affects most of us 'non-US citizens' due to the US dollar presently still being
the reserve currency for most countries in the world, certainly including
Australia.
If the Biden socialists/communists prevail, this may precipitate an exodus from
the US dollar and its fall from power ("reserve currency of the world").
And if THAT happens, it may well take down the Aussie dollar with it.
This is a part of our --interest-- as Australians in our system of government
and fiat money, which since Bretton Woods has been intimately entwined with the
US dollar, for good and for bad.
So we individually and collectively (as Aussies) have this interest in the
presidency of the US, and any policies which may lead to a collapse of the US
dollar's standing in the world (remember Putin re the US actually starting to
use (rather than merely threaten to use) dollar sanctions against Russia, China
etc: "the West has made a colossal mistake").
Legal standing, is inherent in "interest".
Interest may be financial, or may be some other interest.
Such "shared interest" gives rise to the standing needed for any call for a
global government, one world military etc.
Different groups of people (family, city, state, nation, world) have specific
and different shared interests, and corresponding inherent standing.
Inherent standing is "in principle". Legal standing is a "realized" portion of
inherent standing, and sometimes is purely a fiction, e.g. when standing is
afforded by a court to a fictitious entity such as a statutory company.
In direct communication with the POTUS, an individual exercises his original
jurisdiction to so communicate.
When we see e.g. a few million non-US citizens calling for Trump to declare
martial law, he may or may not accord us any standing, from his point of view,
but whether or not he does is almost irrelevant to the purpose of this
petition, which is for individuals to exercise their original jurisdiction and
so manifest their corresponding will in regards to this petition, and thus
manifest a shared will, a shared intention -with- president Trump, the primary
hoped-for effect being the reduction of Trump being a target for any revenge
for such an act, that is to reduce the likelihood that Trump gets JFK'ed.
>From that perspective, we all have standing to communicate, at least to the
>extent that our intended recipient of our communication is willing to receive
>our communication.
